Search

Card sorting has been used in qualitative studies in various fields to better understand how individuals organize information and make choices based on it. As part of a mixed-methods study of why Black engineering students initially chose their major and why they subsequently decided to persist in or switch out of it, we developed a card-sort activity and used it in 79 semi-structured student interviews. Besides generating data relevant to the mission of our study, the activity shifted the students' focus to their own experiences and away from the interviewers, who were not matched with them on race or age and with whom there was a power differential (interviewers with doctorates talking with undergraduates). The article contains a brief overview of the broader study, a description of steps taken to promote authentic storytelling by the interviewees, an outline of the development and application of the card-sort activity, representative findings, and recommendations for other researchers contemplating using a similar technique. We believe our experience in using the card-sort technique and our subsequent mixed-method analysis of the resulting data will benefit qualitative researchers seeking authentic stories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Students have different levels of motivation, different attitudes about teaching and learning, and different responses to specific classroom environments and instructional practices. The more thoroughly instructors understand the differences, the better chance they have of meeting the diverse learning needs of all of their students. Three categories of diversity that have been shown to have important implications for teaching and learning are differences in students' learning styles (characteristic ways of taking in and processing information), approaches to learning (surface, deep, and strategic), and intellectual development levels (attitudes about the nature of knowledge and how it should be acquired and evaluated). This article reviews models that have been developed for each of these categories, outlines their pedagogical implications, and suggests areas for further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As college students experience the challenges of their classes and extracurricular activities, most undergo a developmental progression in which they gradually relinquish their belief in the certainty of knowledge and the omniscience of authorities and take increasing responsibility for their own learning. At a high developmental level (which few reach before graduation), they recognize that all knowledge is contextual, gather and interpret evidence to support their judgments from a wide range of sources, and willingly reconsider those judgments in the light of new evidence. This paper reviews several models of intellectual development, discusses their applicability to science and engineering education, and defines the difficulties that confront instructors seeking to promote the development of their students. A companion paper formulates an instructional model for promoting development that addresses those difficulties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As college students experience the challenges of their classes and extracurricular activities, they undergo a developmental progression in which they gradually relinquish their belief in the certainty of knowledge and the omniscience of authorities and take increasing responsibility for their own learning. At the highest developmental level normally seen in college students (which few attain before graduation), they display attitudes and thinking patterns resembling those of expert scientists and engineers, including habitually and skillfully gathering and analyzing evidence to support their judgments. This paper proposes an instructional model designed to provide a suitable balance of challenge and support to advance students to that level. The model components are (1) variety and choice of learning tasks; (2) explicit communication and explanation of expectations; (3) modeling, practice, and constructive feedback on high-level tasks; (4) a student-centered instructional environment; and (5) respect for students at all levels of development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the new ABET accreditation system was first introduced to American engineering education in the middle 1990s as Engineering Criteria 2000, most discussion in the literature has focused on how to assess Outcomes 3a-3k and relatively little has concerned how to equip students with the skills and attitudes specified in those outcomes. This paper seeks to fill this gap. Its goals are to (1) overview the accreditation process and clarify the confusing array of terms associated with it (objectives, outcomes, outcome indicators, etc.); (2) provide guidance on the formulation of course learning objectives and assessment methods that address Outcomes 3a-3k; (3) identify and describe instructional techniques that should effectively prepare students to achieve those outcomes by the time they graduate; and (4) propose a strategy for integrating program-level and course-level activities when designing an instructional program to meet the requirements of the ABET engineering criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers insights on how chemical engineering teachers will enable their students to develop and improve a targeted skill. It recommends to write detailed learning objectives and give them to the students as study guides for examinations and as guidelines for other assignments such as project reports and oral presentation. It advises to use scoring rubrics to grade anything that involves subjective judgment on the part of the grader.